Hartsdale Agency, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hartsdale Agency, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

69 A.D.2d 832, 415 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11500

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 9, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 A.D.2d 832 (Hartsdale Agency, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hartsdale Agency, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 69 A.D.2d 832, 415 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11500 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and to declare a provision of the parties’ agency agreement to be void, the parties purportedly cross-appeal as of right from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 19, 1978, which, upon plaintiff’s motion for a further pretrial examination of a defense witness and to compel the witness to respond to previously unanswered questions, directed the witness to respond to certain of the questions and sustained the refusal to respond to other questions. Appeal and cross appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. As this court recently reiterated, "Orders made upon questions propounded at an examination before trial are not appealable as of right” (Siegal v Arnao, 61 AD2d 812). Inasmuch as the rulings were made upon a motion on notice and upon a full record, application for leave to appeal could have been made. Had such an application been made, however, we would not have granted leave to appeal in the circumstances of this case (see Siegel v Arnao, supra; cf. Rockwood Nat. Corp. v Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 59 AD2d 573). Mollen, P. J., Suozzi, O’Connor and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and to declare a provision of the parties’ agency agreement to be void, the parties purportedly cross-appeal as of right from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 19, 1978, which, upon plaintiff’s motion for a further pretrial examination of a defense witness and to compel the witness to respond to previously unanswered questions, directed the witness to respond to certain of the questions and sustained the refusal to respond to other questions. Appeal and cross appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. As this court recently reiterated, "Orders made upon questions propounded at an examination before trial are not appealable as of right” (Siegal v Arnao, 61 AD2d 812). Inasmuch as the rulings were made upon a motion on notice and upon a full record, application for leave to appeal could have been made. Had such an application been made, however, we would not have granted leave to appeal in the circumstances of this case (see Siegel v Arnao, supra; cf. Rockwood Nat. Corp. v Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 59 AD2d 573). Mollen, P. J., Suozzi, O’Connor and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.2d 832, 415 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartsdale-agency-inc-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack